Herby Vojčík wrote:
This does not address the problem for destructuring. It's true a Nil
object (as Brandon Benvie prototyped:
https://github.com/Benvie/nil/blob/master/nil.js) can be deeply
destructured.
That is what I meant.
Thought so ;-).
But there is no refutable match future. We need an
I don't understand. :-/
We want a way to match with patterns like so:
match (expr) {
case {must, may?} => ...
case {always} => ...
}
In other words, the ? must go in the LHS pattern language, not on the
RHS of a destructuring binding or assignment expression.
missing semicolons. You get another case where programmers expect ASI
but there's no error to correct:
x = y?
z:w
where z is label and w is a statement that can syntactically (if not
sensibly) be labeled.
... or whatever other syntax. It's about Null Pattern idea, not the
actual syntax.
Ok, but we need a concrete syntax that works if we want anything like
CoffeeScript's suffix-? operator. And I agree suffix-? is attractive.
But it seems like a non-starter based on the use of ? in ?: and : in
labeled statements. Perhaps there's a tweak that saves this concrete
syntax, though?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
